Delayed Over 24 Hours? Dutch Ruling Puts Onus on Airlines to Prove No Faster Route Existed

THE BOTTOM LINE

• “Next Available Flight” Isn’t Enough: An airline’s claim to have rebooked passengers on the “first available flight” is insufficient to fend off compensation claims if the delay exceeds 24 hours.
• Burden of Proof Shifts to the Carrier: Airlines must now proactively prove that no faster alternative flight existed, including on competitor airlines. Failure to provide this evidence can nullify an “extraordinary circumstances” defense.
• Operational Diligence is Key: This ruling underscores the need for robust, documented procedures for re-routing passengers. Airlines must be prepared to show evidence of their search for all possible alternatives in court.

THE DETAILS

This case involved seven passengers whose British Airways flight from Amsterdam to London was cancelled. They were rebooked on a later service but ultimately arrived at their final destination more than 24 hours after their originally scheduled arrival time. The claims agency AirHelp, acting on behalf of the passengers, sued for compensation under EU Regulation 261/2004. The airline defended the claim, partly by suggesting the cancellation was due to extraordinary circumstances.

The District Court of Noord-Holland set aside the debate over extraordinary circumstances, focusing instead on a critical, and often-overlooked, secondary obligation for airlines: the duty to take all “reasonable measures” to mitigate delays. Citing established European case law, the court reiterated that rebooking a passenger on a flight that arrives a full day (i.e., 24 hours) later than planned is, on its face, not considered a reasonable measure. This interpretation places a significant evidentiary burden squarely on the airline’s shoulders.

The decisive factor in the court’s judgment was the airline’s failure to meet this burden of proof. The court ruled that when a rebooking leads to such a substantial delay, the carrier must do more than simply state it chose the “first available flight.” It must actively demonstrate to the court that no other viable options—whether direct or indirect, on its own network or with other carriers—could have reduced the arrival delay. Because the airline failed to provide sufficient evidence to this effect, its defense was unsuccessful, and it was ordered to pay the full compensation.

SOURCE

Source: Rechtbank Noord-Holland